Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Clause 52

Restriction on studies

Amendment moved (this day): 57, in clause 52, page 43, line 28, at beginning insert
where leave is granted for the purpose of studies in the United Kingdom,.(Damian Green.)

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 58, in clause 52, page 43, line 29, at end insert
(ib) a condition restricting his studies to an education institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals.
(1A) An educational institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals must be defined as a University, Institute, Royal College or College under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685)..
New clause 10Restriction on studies: further definition
(1) The Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended by inserting College in column (1) of the Schedule.
(2) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes the word college by a person
(a) to whom the business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) who carries on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and immediately before that transfer,
during the twelve months beginning with the date of the transfer.
(3) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes a word college by a person who
(a) carried on that business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) continues to carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its lawful name..

Damian Green: It is a delight to see you occupying the Chair, Mr. Gale, albeit temporarily. I was at the beginning of my remarks on this group. The break was fortuitous, as it allowed me to look at more details of what the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs said in the Home Affairs Committee this morning, which is directly pertinent to the new clause.
The Committee will remember that I was setting out the background as to why the issue is so important. Not only Opposition parties but many bodies, including the Home Affairs Committee and the security services, have been warning the Government about abuses of the student visa system for immigration purposes for some years. The Minister for Borders and Immigration said this morning that he rather agreed that the old system was deeply imperfect, but that there was now a new system that made things much better.
This morning, the Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skillsor DBIS, if that is what we call it nowsaid that his understanding was that the register was already in place and that the IT systems should be up and running by the end of the year. That does not sound completely like a system in full flow. If the hope is that the IT system will be working by the end of the year, there is clearly some way to go before the new system is properly up and running. There is a long-running problem that we have all known about. There has been inactivity on the part of the Government in cracking down quickly enough on bogus colleges.
The scale of the problem is enormous. One of the witnesses to a recent Home Affairs Committee inquiry estimated that there could be tens of thousands of bogus students across the country. I would be interested to know what the Governments estimate is. Even more frightening is that the British high commission in Pakistan estimates that half of all students to whom it grants visas disappear after reaching the UK. Does the Minister recognise that terrifying figure? We have no estimate of the number of foreign nationals on student visas who have worked more than the permitted 20 hours during term time in the past 12 months.
We have failed to find out from the Home Secretary how many student visas were revoked in each of the past five years as a consequence either of failure to register with the relevant institution at the beginning of the academic year or failure to attend classes. I asked that question and had one of the standard brush-offs, which cited disproportionate cost as the reason why an answer could not be given. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position that it would cost thousands, but nevertheless, this is a serious problem, which affects the security of this country and the integrity of our immigration system. It seemsbecause I believe all the answers I am given by Ministersthat we do not know the scale of the problem. It is difficult to solve a problem if one has no idea of its scale. That, apparently, is the situation we are in. If the Minister wants to say that despite all that it would be too expensivecost thousandsto have the basic information that would enable us to solve the problem, so be it, but that is an interesting insight into the running of government.
Let me move to amendment 57, the purpose of which is clear. Any condition restricting studies could be imposed only on people who had been given leave for the purpose of studying and not on anyone else with limited leave to enter or remain. I hope that the Minister welcomes the amendment. It is in line with the Governments stated aim, which is that the clause meets the objective in the points-based system that students should be tied to the institution that sponsors their entry to and stay in the UK. If so, there is no need for the Secretary of State to take wider powers to impose restrictions on the studies of migrants who have been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. That point arose on Second Reading.
Amendment 57 would address the underlying problem of the Governments tendency to legislate for powers whose nature and extent is realised only much later, when further regulations or guidance are introduced. That process undermines the authority of Parliament. Given that no reason has been advanced for a power to impose conditions restricting studies other than for the stated purposes, which would remain permitted under the amendment, the clause appears to be too wide ranging.
The Minister will be aware that on Report in another place, my noble Friend Lady Hanham tabled an amendment that would have achieved much the same thing as my amendment. She argued that the clause does not provide enough safeguards and that an appropriate balance has to be struck. Other Members of the other place pointed out the practical pitfalls. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who is a professor at Cardiff university, observed that the clause would pose particular difficulties for medical students at Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews, who often do not know where they will pursue their clinical studies, and for all medical students following a six-year course. Amendment 57 is very practical.
Given the testimony by the Further Education Minister to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, I am glad that the Government seem to agree with the intentions of amendment 58 and new clause 10. The Minister spoke about the problem of bogus collegespeople using the word college to set up a bogus institution. I agree that it seems strange that by law we protect the term universityone cannot set up an institution and call it a university in this countrybut one can set up an institution and call it a college. He said that he would undertake to reconsider the matter and that there will be an opportunity to do so in the autumn. I assume that he was talking about a Bill that the Government have planned on the matter.
Although I was grateful for those comments, bogus colleges are, as I have observed already, a big problem that has been a long time in the solving. It seems possible that we could solve it in the Bill and so save ourselves time in a few months when I assume that a different Department will be seeking to solve it with another Bill in the next Session.
That is not an academic point. It was not clear from the Ministers testimony to the Home Affairs Committee whether he intends to introduce provisions in a new Bill or add them to an existing Bill. Given the stage in the electoral cycle, if there is a new Bill, it is conceivable that it will not reach the statute book before a general election, which could result in several years delay before it is introduced. That is quite a serious point, which I hope that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will address.
The new clause addresses the problem with the previous registers, which have proved inadequate in controlling bogus colleges. As with other provisions in the Bill, without proper enforcement, a register is just an empty gesture. I shall quote some figures that I think are constructive. By 1 October 2008, 541 educational institutions applied for licences to sponsor college students; only 19 are universities, 169 are further education colleges and 353the vast majorityare other educational establishments. The border agency has requested attendance reports from 153 colleges and 48 universities since limited mandatory reporting was introduced in April 2007, and since January 2005, 256 colleges on the register of education and training providers have been investigated by the authorities. Of those, 114 have been found to be in breach of the immigration rules and have thus been removed from the register.
That illustrates the scale of the problem and of immigration. We also know that 770 higher education institutions have registered to be tier 4 sponsors in the points-based system. That figure will include universities and other organisations such as private colleges and schools.
The amendment would ensure that only educational establishments registered with Companies House could become a sponsor for foreign students. Currently, those with the word college in their title may apply to be a sponsor regardless of whether they are formally recognised under business law. I hope that the Government will support the amendment, particularly given the remarks of the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs this morning.
The Minister for Borders and Immigration will know that bogus colleges have been a problem for a long time, and that the problem affects different people. Obviously, it affects individual students, but it also affects the reputation of the UK educational system around the world and of the UK immigration control system. One issue to be tackled is the fact that businesses can use the word college almost at will. He will know that the Association of Colleges and the Association of Scotlands Colleges seek to prevent UK and foreign students from enrolling in bogus colleges by making it compulsory to ask the Secretary of States permission before using the word college in a business name. The Bill offers the ideal opportunity to rectify that fault, which has been recognised by everyone involved.
When drawing up the new register for education sponsors, the UK Border Agency rejected applications from more than 300 institutions, many of which were bogus colleges. The Association of Colleges says that as a condition of receiving public money, all its member colleges are subject to stringent regimes of public audit and inspection. As a result, when students attend a bona fide college, they have certain expectations. Bogus colleges prey on unsuspecting students, who are predominantly from overseas. Once they have paid their fees for what are bogus qualifications, no recourse is available to them. Many students are scared to contact the authorities for fear of deportation, because they discover that although they may be the innocent victim of a scam, that will make them vulnerable. In the end, they are in a no-win situation. Either they return to their country of origin angry at the treatment they have received in the UK or they stay here illegally. I am sure the Minister agrees that neither of those results is satisfactory.
The new clause aims simply to protect the word college. Any organisation that wishes to trade under any name that includes the word college would require the express permission of the appropriate authorising official to do so. The Minister may wish to debate whether that would fit best into the new, multi-purpose Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or within his Department, but that is a second-order issue. When I look across Government, it seems to me that everything now comes under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skillsindeed, there are people who wish that.

Phil Woolas: He does.

Damian Green: I am sure Lord Mandelson would prefer that, but it will be interesting to hear the Ministers views.
The Minister will be aware that the restriction on the use of names is not without precedent. Companies House has the right to refuse to register certain words within a corporation name unless permission has been obtained from the relevant authority that holds the power to authorise use of that word. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has to be contacted for permission to use in a company name any of 54 restricted words including institute and, slightly more surprisingly, Sheffield. The various pieces of legislation enabling that power could also ban the use of other prescribed names without the permission of the relevant body. They could include words that relate to education, including polytechnic and special school. Another bizarre example to go with Sheffield is contact lens, the use of which also has to be approved by the Secretary of State. It is an interesting field of legislation, but it seems slightly perverse that we have specifically legislated to protect the name polytechnic, because I am not aware of any academic institutions that still refer to themselves as polytechnics, as they have all changed their names, and indeed their purpose. Polytechnic and special school are protected but college is not.
The Minister will be aware how important it is to protect the name university, and in the modern world it is equally important to protect the title college. I think that that would be a significant step forward both for the education world and in driving out the use of education as a means of circumventing our immigration controls.
The Minister, in a sense, is pushing at an open door. I do not think there is any opposition to the proposalthe Association of Colleges wants it and the Scottish colleges want it. Clearly, he will want to improve further the controls in that area. We have seen huge dangers arise recently inside the security world, as some of the most difficult cases of which we are aware have been related to educational institutions, so it seems to me not only that that is a good idea, but that it would be a good idea if it is done immediately. Even if other parts of Government move to that at some stage in the next few months, I advise him to agree to our amendments and new clause now, or engage to come back at a later stage with something similar, because the sooner we can get on with something like that and get those protections on the statute book, the better.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Gale. I rise briefly to speak in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ashford on amendment 58. I am normally an assiduous attender of the Home Affairs Committee, and I see other members of that Committee here today. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Bill has somewhat got in the way of my attendance in the past couple of weeks, but the last sitting I attended focused on bogus colleges, and it was clear that the scale of abuse is completely unacceptable. It was also clear that that abuse has been going on for many years10 years was the figure quoted for contact with successive Ministers to try to resolve the issue. It would appear that it has not yet been resolved, and witnesses giving evidence were able to provide the Committee with many examples of so-called colleges operating above fish and chip shops or pubs and clearly providing no education. They were a conduit for getting people into the country to work illegally.
The amendments wording might not be exactly right for achieving what the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I support his intention to ensure that only legitimate colleges can be sponsors and that simply opening an establishment that has nothing more than a letterhead and a sign outside stating that it is a college is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the proposals. He might see a way of refining the amendment to make it in order, if it is not currently in order, but I hope that he will at least accept that there is a significant problem and that the amendment is a sensible and friendly way of trying to address it.

Phil Woolas: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again in a Bill Committee, Mr. GaleI think for the third time. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford for moving the amendment and will try to address the issues directly. We have had an introduction to the amendments, looking at the wider range of issues relating to colleges and students in the immigration system. Clause 52, and therefore the amendments to it, is restricted to a particular point, but with your agreement, Mr. Gale, I should like to address the general point first.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who has followed the Home Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence on this issue, has mentioned the scale of the abuse that is going on. However, I hope he recognises that, with the introduction of tier 4 and the points-based system, particularly the requirement for people to have a sponsor licencea student can only get a visa on the basis of an offer of a place from a specific sponsor, not on a more flexible basis, as previouslythis problem in the system, which I recognise has been abused in the past, is being addressed. I prefer to debate this problem by referring to the past. Of course, there are students working their way through the system who came in under the old system, but the figures given to the Home Affairs Committee, which I will not repeat here, Mr. Gale, because you would not let me do so even if I had them at my fingertips, show that we can demonstrate that the number of institutions that are now able to bring in overseas students has fallen dramatically.
The clause supports the new system by addressing the issue of students wanting to transfer from one sponsored college, university or institution to another. Under the new system, a student cannot come into the country on a visa for study at a sponsored institution and then transfer to a non-sponsored institution, because that is not allowed. The clause states that, if a student wants to transfer to another sponsored institution, they can, but they must first seek permission. That will enable the UK Border Agency and the institution concerned to ensure that we can properly monitor whether the fact, or otherwise, regarding the purpose of the visathat is, studyis being adhered to, because the abuse of the system in the past has been, partly, that students came in, started at college and then disappeared, and in some cases no check was made.
The amendment is in line with what the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), has been saying this morning in the Home Affairs Committee. That sequence of events follows my appearance, and that of my colleagues at UKBA, in that Committee, where, to offer a caricature, the Chair and the Committee were supportive of the system that we have put in place but thought that the definition of a college needed looking at. Indeed, the further education colleges have been campaigning on this pointthere have been articles in the specialist press about thisto try to protect the name and reputation not just of the college, but of the UK as a whole, as the hon. Member for Ashford said.
Of course, we have, through the points-based system, been able to introduce a sponsor-register system, backed up with accreditation from the approved bodies, to ensure that for immigrations purposes only the proper colleges, as they might be called colloquially, are now able to take in overseas students. Quite right too, and as some including me would say, about time too. However, the definition of a college is wider than that, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Apart from the drafting points that I could mention, if Committee members wanted me to, an immigration Bill is not the place to consider that definition, although I appreciate that there is concern about this matter and I admire the ingenuity of bringing across the Company and Business Name Regulations 1981 in the amendments.
The intention behind the amendment is narrow to allow it to address the matter of transferring across, but it goes much further than that. The new clause will allow us to impose on a migrant a system in relation to his or her studies. It will operate in much the same way, with the immigration rules specifying where the restrictions will apply to other categories, so that the purpose of the visa is met. In other words, a person will not be able to transfer across from a work visa to a study, spousal or family visit visa.
A further obstacle to the amendments lies, as I mentioned, in the detail of subsection (1A), which amendment 58 suggests adding to the clause. It appears to seek to use an immigration Bill to introduce a power to make college a protected term under the current Company and Business Names Regulations 1981, which as the hon. Gentleman says, already protects the names university, institute and royal. I understand the motivation behind that and personally support it.
The new powers that the UK Border Agency has for a register of sponsors now provide a significant level of protection for institutions. They have significantly strengthened previous arrangements, by requiring all tier 4 sponsors to be independently audited, inspected and accredited by one of a limited number of approved accreditation bodies before they can qualify as sponsors. We are talking about non-EU students, if I can bring in that thorny subject. One of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs deals with is that of students from the European economic area, which he must take into account. That can include language colleges and so on, as well as other issues that we in the Home Office are particularly concerned about.
In addition, a new offence is due to come into force with the Company and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2009I kid you not, Mr. Galewhich will take effect on 1 October. That is part of the tranche of regulations that, quite rightly, are part of the new regime. The new offence relates to carrying on business in the UK under a name that gives such a misleading indication of the nature of its activities that it is likely to cause harm to the public. Under that offence, the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, acronym BISno commentwill be able to direct an organisation to change its name. That may include removal of the term college if that is considered to be misleading.
In short, the purpose of protecting the name seems to make sense. My colleagues are putting forward ideas, and have given evidence to the Select Committee. A regulatory power exists there, so I do not believe that it is appropriate for the immigration Bill to undertake that change. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentlemans wider point.

Damian Green: I thank the Minister for his explanation.

Phil Woolas: And the honesty.

Damian Green: Always the honesty. When he responds to questions, that is always a relief. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Get on with it.

Damian Green: I will carry on. The serious point is that the sensitive names and words order contains a test of public harm. I imagine that will have to be tested in court, and precedents will need to be set as to what constitutes public harm.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is right. To be fair to him and the Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs told the Committee that he would look again at whether the term college should be protected, and if so, whether there ought to be a link with accreditation of some form, to ensure that the system of registration as a college is tightened up further, so that it would not rely just on that regulation. That was his commitment.

Damian Green: That is very helpful. It would be a small but significant step forward. There might still be a problem, because it is clearly only after the fact of regulation. If someone sets up a bogus college, over time people will realise that it is a bogus college, so it might be possible to close it downif it passes the public harm test, or whatever has to be donebut nevertheless it seems likely that in the intervening period, if it has taken on students, either it has been used to evade immigration regulations or it is being used to take fees off people, with all the consequent damage to the educational reputation of this country and, indeed, the reputation of and confidence in the immigration system that we have all talked about. As explained by the Minister, I am not sure whether the regulations will do what is required.

Phil Woolas: Just to re-emphasise, it could not happen for an immigrant student now, because of our system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs is looking at the regulation that the hon. Gentleman referred to and at accreditation as well, to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Damian Green: I am delighted. I look forward to seeing it in Hansard that the Minister is claiming that that could not happen to an immigrant student. We cannot have any bogus colleges taking in immigrant studentsthat is what he has just said. I am not sure that he wants that read into the record.

Phil Woolas: Not bogus collegebogus students.

Damian Green: No bogus colleges at all is quite a strong claim that the Minister is trying to make. In the spirit of good will, we shall take him at his word. We accept that the Minister has assured us that there will be no more bogus colleges and that there will be no more students being scammed by those bogus colleges or using them for purposes of illegal immigration. We can return to the subject in the months to come, to see whether that promise has been fulfilled. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Fingerprinting of foreign criminals liable to automatic deportation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: Clause 53 is a minor amendment to the UK Border Agencys existing powers to take fingerprints, to ensure that the agency can take fingerprints of all foreign criminals subject to the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 at the earliest possible opportunity. The House and the country want us to deport foreign national prisoners in an efficient and effective system. We seek the power to ensure that we have the fingerprints at the earliest possible opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Extension of sections 1 to 4 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to Scotland

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 54, page 44, line 18, leave out thinks and insert has reasonable suspicion..
It is with some trepidation that I ever step into the potential quagmire of the relationship of legislation to Scotland, which is always particularly sensitive in front of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies. However, there is and has always been a difficulty with immigration legislation and Scotland since the devolution settlement, the requirements of Sewel and so on.
Those of us who are veterans of the 2007 Bill will remember that there were problems at the time, because the Government could not persuade the then Scottish Executive to do what they wanted, which was particularly ironic because in those days the Scottish Executive was run by the Labour party. I remember asking at the time what would happen if things were like this thenwhat would happen if perchance Scotland ever found itself with an Administration run by another party, as we now have. I assume that is why we have what is being firmly written into UK-wide, non-devolved legislationto ensure that we do not have such problems.
The specific issue addressed by our amendment, which simply removes thinks and inserts has reasonable suspicion, is to probe what the Minister means. Thinks seems to be a word that is not particularly suited for legislation. It would appear to allow an immigration officer incredibly wide powers if he thinks something about an individual. The phrase has reasonable suspicion would not only have more legal force but would be somewhat more precise. Frankly, it would also be less likely to give rise to future challenges under various provisions in human rights legislation. Whatever we write into the Bill, the Minister will be aware that it can be challenged under various other Acts that Parliament has passed, notably the Human Rights Act. Simply allowing an immigration officer to think something about an individual when it is not clear that they would have a reasonable suspicion that that person was subject to a warrant for arrest, which is what the clause says at the moment, is problematic. The definition just seems to be rather wide and rather woolly. I could be disabused of that view by the Minister, but I would like some sort of explanation as to why there is this particular wording in the clause.

Phil Woolas: I shall try to respond to the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled to his satisfaction, in the hope of persuading him to withdraw the amendment.
Once again, what we are talking about here is the extension of sections 1 to 4 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to Scotland, recognising the particular circumstances that exist there and also the relationship between the immigration officials power to detain and the power of arrest, which is what the clause is about.
I would like to explain the clause, Mr. Gale, if that is within your strictures. It enables a designated immigration officerearlier, we discussed how the process of designation happensat a port in Scotland, by which we mean airports as well as seaports because port is a catch-all word, to detain an individual for up to three hours pending the arrival of a constable, if the immigration official thinks that the person is subject to an arrest warrant. That is an important difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian will know.
The power, as extended to Scotland, reflects the requirements identified in Scotland, in conjunction with UKBA, and it will provide UK border force officers in Scotland, once they are trained and designated, with powers similar to those of their colleagues in the rest of the UK.
The power to detain an individual for up to three hours can be used if the immigration official thinks that that individual is liable to arrest under specified sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, or if the individual is subject to a warrant for arrest. So the answer to the hon. Gentlemans questionessentially he asked what the difference is between thinks and has reasonable suspicionis in relation to those PACE codes.
The powers were introduced in response to a need for powers for immigration officials to deal with those individuals, including British and EEA nationals, who are of interest to the police. So the measure is a read-across and it also has an important read-across to the debate that we will have later on police powers. Essentially the immigration official is being asked to take a judgment on whether or not he or she thinks, according to the PACE guidance, that that individual passing through the border is subject to a warrant for arrest in Scotland.
During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the noble Lords expressed concern that the new powers did not extend to Scotland. The Government therefore committed to work with the Scottish Government, the Scottish police forces and our own people in the agency to look at the issue. We are pleased that a legislative consent motion has been approved in the Scottish Parliament to extend the power. That happened because it relates to police powers, which are devolved, not immigration officials, who are of course answerable to UKBA.

David Hamilton: Does the Minister acceptI made this point last week at the wrong timethat the measure requires a UK policy in legislation, and we require a UK police force. At the end of the day, we have a patchwork quilt. We have to talk to the Scottish legislators, but a UK police force would change that position.

Phil Woolas: We will have that debate later. The Governments response is that the measure relates to police powers. We are trying to knit together the two so that police forces, which would not be part of the UKBA under the proposals of the hon. Member for Ashford, also have a role working with the UKBA. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UKBA is as it saysimmigration is not a devolved matter.
On the specifics, a designated immigration officer may search a detained individual for potential weapons and anything that might be used to assist escape. If, during the course of such a search, the official finds anything that might be evidence of the commission of an offence, he or she must retain that evidence. A designated immigration officer will also be able to use reasonable force when exercising that power.
The extension of the powers to Scotland will mean that this important measure will cover the whole United Kingdom. In other words, our strategy is to bring police-like powers into the agency for a more effective partnership with the police. It is important to point out that we are talking about the power to detain, not the power to arrest.
The measure could be used for non-immigration, criminal purposes. In other words, if the immigration official suspects that someone is wanted for arrest in Scotland, or that someone is on a watch list, they can detain them and call the police, who can then decide whether to go and arrest them.
Let me turn specifically to amendment 59, which is probing. During the passage of the UK Borders Bill, the detention at ports powers generated much debate and correspondence on four issues: first, immigration officers getting police-like powers; secondly, the non-application of PACE codes of practice to the exercise of the powers; thirdly, the designation criteria and adequacy of the training, which we covered earlier; and, fourthly, the non-application of the powers to Scotland. The amendmentthe hon. Member for Ashford does not claim otherwisewould have no practical effect on the threshold that designated officials apply when deciding whether the use of the detention power is appropriate. Rather, it addresses what constitutes a reason for a person to detain an individual and call the police. I am advised that it would introduce an inconsistency in the application of the power depending on whether it was being exercised in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in Scotland, but I concede that it would make no practical difference to the operation of the power.
The amendment would require a designated officer at a port in Scotland to have a reasonable suspicion that an individual might be the subject of an arrest warrant. Meanwhile, a similar officer in England, Wales or Northern Ireland may detain an individual if he or she simply thinks that a person might be the subject of any such warrant.

Damian Green: I am puzzled by this argument. The Minister previously said that there would be no practical difference, but he now says that there is a practical difference. If the latter is true, it suggests that immigration officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are detaining people when they have not got even a reasonable suspicion that they have an arrest warrant against them. Is that what he is saying?

Phil Woolas: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did not let me finish my argument. He is disagreeing with my conclusion before I have made it. I will not detain the Committee much longer, because there is no practical difference in implementation; it is simply that there would be an inconsistency in the legal regime if the amendment were agreed to.
Briefly, the amendment would require an officer in Scotland to have reasonable suspicion. Meanwhile, an officer in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman says, may detain an individual if he or she simply thinks that a person may be the subject of any warrant. I imagine that the intention behind the amendment is to highlight the importance of ensuring that the powers are exercised reasonably, which is to say appropriately and proportionately. I share that view, which is also the Governmentsquite right too, in my opinion.
In England, Wales or Northern Ireland, a designated immigration officer must reasonably think that the things specified in section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007 apply before exercising the power under that section in relation to any person. That power is clear enough. The same would be true of a designated official in Scotland, in accordance with clause 54. Moreover, we have already set out clearly in standard operating procedures, which are published on the UK Border Agency website, circumstances in which it would be appropriate to exercise the power in section 2 of the 2007 Act and details of the associated safeguards and monitoring arrangements.
My argument is simply that the established practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is backed up by that standard operating procedure, is now being applied to Scotland. If the amendment were agreed to, there would be a different set of operating procedures in Scotland and a different interpretation of those procedures. Although the practical impact might not be different, that would cause inconsistency.
This is not a point of principle; it is simply a point about consistent legislation. One small aspect of the provision, for Committee members information, is that, in Scotland, an individual who is liable to be detained under section 2 is likely to be identified by a designated immigration officer on the basis of one or more of the following: an entry on a watch list of an individual who is subject to an arrest warrant and is detected by the immigration officer during travel document examination; an alert issued by the joint border operations centreor e-Borders arrangements, as it wereon the basis of information received in advance of travel in respect of an individual who is subject to an arrest warrant and is detected by the immigration officer either at arrival gates or by an immigration officer during travel document examination; or on information or intelligence received, through existing channels, from another law enforcement agency about an individual who is subject to an arrest warrant and is detected by the immigration officer either at arrival gates or embarkation controls, or during travel document examination.
The clause is required to stand as it is for the consistency of policy throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentlemans question. I appreciate that it is not a hugely important point, but we like consistent legislation.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the Ministers full explanation of an amendment of one word in the clause.

Phil Woolas: It is important in Scotland.

Damian Green: Indeed. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian, which is that much of the complicationthe patchwork quilt, as it has been describedwould be solved if we had UK-wide border police with the same powers, operating methods and systems in all parts of the UK. Unless and until we face the unwelcome event of Scotland becoming an independent country, that would be the simplest and best solution.
Our debate has given a small illustration of a corner of a wider difficulty. In this instance, immigration is not a devolved power, but policing is, so those who police immigration fall through the cracks. That is why the Government had problems with the 2007 Act, and it is why we are having difficulties with this issue in the Bill. The debate has been extremely useful because it has illustrated that wider and very important problem to which we will return later in our considerations. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Fresh claim applications

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments 33, 35 and 38.
Government new clause 4Transfer of immigration or nationality judicial review applications.

Phil Woolas: The Government oppose clause 55, which has been inserted into part 4 of the Bill. It relates to the ability to transfer judicial reviews from the High Court to the upper tribunal in the unified tribunal system that has been established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It would prevent restrictions being placed on which appeals may be heard by the Court of Appeal. There is a pressing need to provide the administrative court, and its equivalents in the devolved areas, with greater flexibility in handling immigration judicial reviews, but our strong case is that clause 55, which is a more restrictive provision than the Government and the judiciary believe is necessary, is not sufficient to relieve the burden on the higher courts.
The clear purpose of clause 55 is to limit the class of cases that can be transferred to the upper tribunal to those cases concerned with fresh claims applications. It is unclear whether the intention of the clause is to require a High Court judge to consider every case individually. Neither is it clear whether the omission of Scotland and Northern Ireland is deliberate or an oversight. As my noble Friend Lord West pointed out in another place, the clause refers to applications made under rule 353 of the immigration rules. In reality, applications are refused under that rule, not made, so, in that regard, the clause does not achieve its aim.
The problems with clause 55 run deeper than those drafting difficulties. It would restrict the ability of our most senior judges to manage cases in the best interests of justice. The Government believe that we should not restrict the judiciary in that way, and that we should allow our most senior judges to exercise their constitutional responsibility, which is so clearly reflected in the 2007 Act, for the allocation of cases within courts and tribunals. It is that allocation, rather than the hearing, that is important.
In addition, the clause would prevent the Lord Chancellor from restricting the test for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in immigration cases. The Master of the Rolls has pointed out that the majority of those appeals raise no point of general importance, and it is therefore wholly disproportionate for there to be an automatic right for them to be substantively considered by the most senior judges who sit in the Court of Appeal.
Of course, we acceptI would argue that we know better than mostthat there may be some cases that raise the real prospect that the decision of the upper tribunal will be in breach of the UKs human rights obligations. Those are precisely the sort of cases that would meet the test that is set out in section 6 of the Act. Most importantly, it is in the best interests of justice to allow the senior judiciary, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, to decide which classes of judicial review cases are suitable to be heard in the upper tribunal once we reach that stage. That is a procedure that is already in operation in non-immigration jurisdictions. As the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 has unified the system, other areas outside of immigration are already there. The Lord Chief Justice, the Lord President and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland are responsible for the allocation of work between courts. That responsibility should be reflected in our Bill, too.
On 8 May, I announced the Governments intention to transfer the asylum and immigration tribunal to the first tier and upper tribunal of the new unified system. Transferring the AIT provides an opportunity to address the significant burden on the higher courts, and we must ensure that we take full advantage of that. The best way of achieving that is to reintroduce the clause as originally drafted. New clause 4 reintroduces the original clause and I wish to argue that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, but should be replaced later on with the new clause.
Let me briefly explain what we are trying to achieve here. The fact of the matter is that the immigration system is subject to significant applications for judicial review. Last year, there were an incredible 4,454 applications for judicial review. One may say that that reflects some fault in the systemthat decisions by tribunals have been wrong. However, when one considers that 85 per cent. of those applications for judicial review were not progressed and that something like 60 to 70 per cent. of the High Court work is in the area of immigration, we can see that there is a problem. In other words, our higher courts are being bunged uplet me use that phrasewith such matters.
What we are trying to achieve is a more efficient system that can speed up decisions, because it is the speed of decision in the immigration system that has caused such difficulty. We want not only to speed up but to achieve better decisions by allowing the expert tribunals to take decisions. At the same time, we do not want to restrict the ability to take principal cases to the High Court. If it is judged by the higher court to be suitable for it, it can take it as well. That is what we want to achieve in rejecting the clause as it stands. We will ask the Committee at a later stage to consider reinserting the clause as it stood.

Damian Green: I wish to speak in favour of clause 55 standing part of the Bill because I believe that their lordships struck the appropriate balance. I have a scintilla of sympathy for the Minister who is trying to introduce legislation that balances the needs of justice for individual claimants and the needs of the court system. He argued the case foras he eloquently put itfinding a way to resolve the stuffing up of the court system.

Phil Woolas: Bunging up.

Damian Green: Sorry, bunging up, which is a legal term that I have not come across before. If one reads the long, serious and high-powered debate that took place on the matter in the Lords, greater legal brainsnot mine or the Ministers; we both have similar backgrounds and they are not legal backgroundshave come to the conclusion that the Government have got this wrong. For that reason, this is one of the parts of the Bill which was radically changed and what is now clause 55 was introduced.
There was widespread agreement in the other place that many of the cases from the immigration and asylum courts could be transferred satisfactorily to the new upper tribunal. That would be an effective way of reducing the pressure on the administrative courts. However, there were a significant number of issues that came up during that debate, which are quite convincing and damaging to the case that the Minister has made. What clause 55 does is limit the transfer of those cases to one category that was held to be appropriate, and provides that the power in the 2007 Act to limit appeals from the upper tribunal to the Court of Appeal would not apply to asylum and immigration cases. Unlike the original clause, which the Minister is seeking to reintroduce as new clause 4, clause 55 specifies that it would not come into force until the asylum and immigration tribunal had been transferred to a unified tribunals system.
Early on in his remarks, the Minister argued that clause 55 stands in the way of the allocation of cases in the interests of justice. That is where his argument falls down because he is striking the wrong balance. The strongest objection made in the debate in the Lords to the Governments proposals was the concern that they were trying to achieve the objective of cutting down access to the higher courts by the back door. When the Government made an attempt to do that in 2004, it was fiercely opposed, including by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we have members of that committee on this one.
No one would deny that there is a real problem of overburdening the courts, or that immigration cases significantly contribute to that overburdening. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee does not object in principle to cases which are not highly significant or complex being considered in the upper tribunal. However, it came to the right conclusion when it said that failings on the part of the Home Office must not be compensated for by a lessening of appeal rights in those complex cases which engage human rights issues or constitutional principles.
That is the nub of the argument, where the balance needs to be struck. The Minister will be aware of other groups, for example, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. It said that it
plainly cannot be argued that the proposal will effect some fundamental change in the nature of the tribunal hearing these appeals which will justify shutting off the constitutional right of access to the High Court and severely restricting access to the Court of Appeal.
In summary, most of those who took part in the debate in the other place agreed that someor even mostasylum and immigration could be transferred to the upper tribunal. There was a general view that the jurisdiction of the High Court should not be ousted altogether. A key point in that regard was made by Lady Butler-Sloss, who is a very distinguished judge. She saw the issue as
not which court, but which judge, should deal with the case.[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 2009; Vol. 707, c. 1174.]
She also said that the judges should be carefully selected and trained. That is the point; we want the most difficult cases in front of the right judges. This is where the Government are in danger of finding themselves in an unbalanced position by creating other problems in an attempt to clear up the problem of delay. Most notably, they could find that they do not have the right cases in front of the right judges by removing the jurisdiction from the appropriate level of court. That is why their lordships had an array of amendments in front of them, including one that took a middle way. However, they chose the more radical amendment. My noble Friend Lord Kingsland said that he was extremely unhappy to permit any transfers of immigration or asylum judicial review cases until they had seen the effect of the transfer of the AIT to the new unified tribunal service.
Their lordships discussed this key issue of timing, but the Minister did not address this point. Many of their lordships said that Government proposals to change the system were simply premature, coming only 18 months after Parliament had decided to exclude such cases from the upper tribunal, and only three months after the tribunal had started work. That is a very valid argument; we do not yet know how this unified tribunal system is working, so it is not sensible to decide now to take such an important class of cases away from the High Court and allow them to go only as far as the upper tribunal. We should see how the system works in practice before we take that action.
Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, pointed out three big problems with the provision: an immediate risk of injustice to the litigant, a risk that inadequate handling of judicial reviews by an untested tribunal will result in an increased work load for the supervising courtthe Court of Appealand the risk of reduced supervision at the Home Office. The latter could result in more liberties being taken, leading to more instances of injustice and, therefore, increased litigation. The root of that objection is the thought that, in attempting to clear up the court system, this will not work, and might even result in more, rather than less, litigation.
The next argument advanced, which was quite convincing, was that the horrendous delays in the immigration and asylum courts, which contribute to many of the wider problems in the immigration system, are caused not by the simple volume of cases, but by other factors, many of which are under the control of Ministers and the Home Office itself. Those factors include the poor quality of the initial decisions, the fault of the appeals structure, the fact that withdrawing appeal rights has led to more judicial review applications, the emphasis on speed rather than quality, the failure of the Home Office to comply with case management directions, and the lack of adequate provision for early legal representation.
There is some validity in each of those objections, especially the one about the poor quality of initial decisions. I am sure that those of us who deal with such matters on a daily basis hear constantly about the many cases that appear before the AIT in which no presenting officer is present, which means that the judge will inevitably hear only one side of the story. That, in itself, contributes to the less-than-optimal operation of the AIT. In seeking to solve the AITs problems, the Government might actually be looking in the wrong direction.
The Ministers objective is not a bad one. He is trying to speed up the asylum and immigration courts. I do not think that anyone would object to that. [Hon. Members: Some might.] Yes, some might, but I can assure the Minister that neither I, nor anyone else in my party, would. However, the problem is that if he simply goes for speed, rather than speed accompanied by fairness, not only will he make the system less fair, but, in the long run, he might not even solve the problem of speed, because there will be more and more appeals. That point was made very powerfully by some very powerful legal brains in another place. For the Government simply to ignore them would be foolish and would lead the House down the wrong track.
As I say, I speak in favour of the existing clause 55, and I hope that the Minister will not press his amendments and new clause 4.

Tom Brake: I do not propose to cover the same ground as the hon. Member for Ashford. He quoted my partys spokesman in the other place and highlighted concerns raised there. Those concerns still apply here, at least with regard to the proposal that the Minister has put before us today. Therefore, we believe that the clause should be retained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale asked me point out that in the summary table to which the Minister referred there are no figures quoted in the section on appealsreduced asylum and immigration cases before higher courts. That reduction is a stated benefit, but again it is unfortunately not a quantified stated benefit. In fact, in the whole of that summary table not a single benefit has been quantified. I understand that the Minister may not want to give incorrect figures, but he now seems to have lurched in completely the opposite direction and is providing us with no figures at all, which is just as unhelpful as providing incorrect figures used to be.
So I hope that the Minister will backtrack from his proposal to remove the clause. All the concerns that were expressed in the other place still exist; they have not been addressed. I hope that the clause is retained in the Bill.

Phil Woolas: In his absence, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale on spotting that. If he can tell me how many appeals there will be in three years time, I will tell him what our estimate of the costs is. The situation is not as scientific as that. None the less, I take his point.
Let me try to provide some reassurances to the Committee. This is a serious debate about the structure of our legal decision-making system in the asylum and immigration processes. We have a situation that, if it is not unique, is unusual. The other place has made its view clear and the judiciary made their views clear in their responseas far as it is possible to say that there is a consensus among the judiciary and while recognising their independencein broad support of the Governments policies. That situation has been brought about by a very practical set of facts.
It is simply not fair to say that the fairness of the decisions is in question. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford on his last criterion. I have some sympathy with the idea of early legal advice. Indeed, I have some sympathy with the idea of early legal representation to improve the quality of decision making. However, I cannot accept his other four or five criteria.
I do not accept that there is unfairness in a judicial review being heard in the expert upper tribunal, because the upper tribunals will consist of the expert judges. So I do not accept that that is the case. That principle was accepted for non-immigration cases in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and there is no reason for a different point of view in immigration cases.
On the point about the decisions, as I have already said, last year we had about 4,454 applications for judicial review. A total of 85 per cent. of those applications were rejected just on the papers. That suggests that the applications for judicial review are abusive, if that is the right word, rather than that there are poor decisions. All Members of Parliament who deal with these issues will recognise the truth of what I have just said.
I am not in any sense taking away the right to apply for a judicial review. I am trying to put in place a system that deals with judicial review more effectively. Indeed, the members of the judiciary who are the most senior lawyers in this regard believe that we have got this matter right. Let me just refer to the UKBA website. We have support from the Master of the Rolls, the president of the asylum and immigration tribunal and the president of the Queens bench division, among other members of the judiciary, for the changes proposed in the Bill to the way in which judicial review should be considered. That follows the consultation on reform of the immigration and asylum appeals system. We have not plucked it out of thin air; we have been working on the proposals with colleagues and the judiciary for a year, and, on the whole, they have come roundI am being very careful with my wordsto our point of view.
The president of the Queens bench division said:
The proposals in the Consultation Paper are strongly supported. The judges of the Administrative Court, the court most directly affected, were invited to provide an input into this response. The only reaction received from them has been one of warm endorsement of the proposals. There has been no opposition to the proposals.
The senior president of tribunals said:
I also welcome the proposal to remove the statutory bar on the transfer of immigration judicial review cases to the Upper Tribunal.
The upper tribunal will be well established at the point at which the proposals are implemented. He went on:
The Lord Chief Justice and Lord President have already directed the transfer of some non-immigration related judicial review to the Upper Tribunal from its inception. The necessary legislative change should be made as soon as possible to allow transfer of immigration related cases.
That is strong support. I recognise that the other place took a different view. There was a well-informed debate there; that is what it is for and I respect that. However, the judiciary and the UK Border Agency have to run a system, and we think that this is the best way forward.
On the accusation that the measure is an attempt to oust judicial reviews, the right of judicial review will still exist but some cases will be heard in the upper tribunal rather than in the High Court. It will be for the High Court judges, or the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, to decide which cases will be heard in the upper tribunal. The measure does not take away that right. It makes the system more effective. How many cases will be transferred into the upper tribunal will be a decision for the High Court and the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice will be able to take into account the capacity of the upper tribunal, as well as the burden on the High Court, which at the moment we simply cannot do. It is surely not in the interests of justice that 60 to 70 per cent. of High Court decisions are on immigration.
The issue of timing is important, and I respect the hon. Gentlemans point of view on that. He said that it was a question of balance and that we had the balance wrong. He agreed with the other place. My argument is that we have the balance right and I shall explain why. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, on which I have in part based my argument, allows most judicial review cases to be transferred to the upper tribunal, but excludes immigration cases. When that Act was passed we did not intend to transfer the AIT into the unified system, and it does not make sense for immigration judicial review cases to be heard in the upper tribunal unless immigration judges are available. In light of the burden on the higher courts and our decision to transfer the AIT, the time is right to legislate to remove that barrier. I believe that I have shown that, on the whole, the judiciary support that.
Of course, we will not commence the legislation until the specialist immigration judges are in the upper tribunal. Contrary to the argument of the hon. Member for Ashford, I believe that we have the balance right in the interests of fairness, justice and an effective immigration system. The fundamental problem with immigration decision making, which distinguishes it from most other areas of tribunal decisions, is that circumstances change for individuals as time passes. That means that a more effective system is more desirable, not just for the system as a whole but for the individual. Those are my three main arguments for rejecting the clause as it stands and proposing a new clause for a later stage.

Damian Green: I want to respond briefly to the Ministers remarks. Almost as a side issue, he is quoting from the UKBA website the remarks of senior and distinguished figures of the judiciary, but presumably they made those remarks somewhere else, so that seems slightly odd. Presumably some of them would have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the other place, so that is the root of where I think he has got it wrong.
The Minister rightly said that the purpose of the other place, as it currently functions, is to provide a level of dispassionate expertise that may not be available at the rough end of this place, which we occupy. He agreed with me, and indeed anyone who has read the debate in the other place would testify, that it was an extremely serious debate, conducted on both sides by people who have thought about the issues for a long time and come to some deep conclusions. He accepted all that but is inviting us to reject entirely the conclusion reached in the other place. We can all cite authorities, but ultimately, if their lordships are addressing an issue with particular expertise and come to such a convincing conclusion in a vote, we should heed them. It is not a particularly partisan issue, as we all agree that there are significant problems with the immigration courts and with delays, and I would welcome practical moves from the Government to resolve them. At the moment, however, they are looking at the wrong end of the pipe.
I am glad that the Minister agreed that one of the problems, and one which would actually make a very significant difference to the delays, is that when the legal advice is provided[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he had sympathy with the argumentI can see the subtle difference between that and actually agreeing with me. He will be aware of experiments in this country and other parts of the world showing that the early application of significant legal advice, particularly in an asylum application, can mean that in the long run it is decided more quickly and accurately. It might never get to court and certainly would not get to appeal, so the advice serves many purposes.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that 85 per cent. of applications for judicial review are rejected, and does such a high proportion not make one question the quality or motivation of the legal advice being given to people seeking judicial review?

Damian Green: There is some validity in my hon. Friends point. Indeed, I have heard that view expressed with a degree of enthusiasm by the Minister, who is not known as the biggest fan of the legal profession, particularly the part of it that deals with immigration and asylum cases. I am, as a habit, gentler on the legal profession than he is, not least because I am married to a lawyer, so perhaps for no other reason than self-preservation, that seems an appropriate course of action. Nevertheless, there is a point; we all know from our constituency cases that there might be a degree of abuse of the legal privileges afforded to those going through the immigration system, particularly the asylum system, and it would be better to stamp it out. The question is whether the clause is the best way to do that. I suspect that it is not, as it would not solve the problem that my hon. Friend and the Minister have noticed, and would give rise to the other problems that I have mentioned.
I return to the point, which is germane to my hon. Friends intervention too, about the stage in the process at which we should concentrate our legal advice. I seek to minimise the effect on the public purse, as would the Minister, and to maximise the speed at which people go through the system, because delay promotes both injustice and expense. As I was saying, experiments in this country, and many experiments overseas, have revealed that if someone receives decent legal advice at the start of the process, their case will not only be concluded more quickly but will be much less likely to go to appeal. If they then end up being removed from the country, they are more likely to accept the situation. The problems with delays and with many people refusing to go and causing violence on planes are driven out of the system. Sweden has a successful return rate of more than 90 per cent. We could learn from that, and in doing so we would also save public money.
The Minister disagreed with me about the timing, but he did not particularly convince me. It seems very early in the life of the new unified tribunal system to be proceeding down such a path. I note that one of the authorities he quoted is in charge of the tribunal system, but I would expect the person in charge of the tribunal system to say that it is all working marvellously. Indeed, I would be worried if they did not. Nevertheless, we should give it more time to bed down. In the end, much wise advice was given in another place about this matter, and I think that this House should listen, so the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 55 disagreed to.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Duty regarding the welfare of children

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 57, page 45, line 22, after Kingdom, insert
or the responsibility of the UK Government or UK agencies abroad.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of this straightforward but powerful, I hope, amendment, which touches on the welfare of children who are in contact with UKBA. We do not always have a particularly positive record that we can be proud of on children, as with the detention of families in detention centres. This small amendment would perhaps redress that balance and ensure that we gave greater priority to children and provided for the welfare of children in and outside the UK. I wrote down something that the Minister said earlier today. He saidthis is a direct quotethat we are effectively exporting our borders. Clearly, that is what we are doing at entry clearance posts and juxtaposed controls, or perhaps in the course of an escorted removal. If we are exporting our borders with the acceptance and acknowledgment of other countries, can we not also ensure that the standards we apply to the welfare of children within the UK who are being looked after by UKBA, also apply to children from outside the UK who are in contact with UKBA?
This is a straightforward proposal, which is welcomed by the Refugee Council and others, and it is hard to see why the Government would not want to support it. Is there any reason for UKBA to have a different attitude to the welfare of a child who is being escorted outside the UK, from the approach to welfare issues that it would take for a child within the UK? It is straightforward.
In an earlier sitting we had an interesting debate about whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission should have any powers abroad. We asked whether it should be possible for someone to make a complaint about something that happened abroad, and for the IPCC to pick up and deal with it in this country. Currently it cannot, and I suppose a certain logic says that if suitable policing or reporting arrangements apply in another country, we should allow that country to deal with any complaints.
The Ministers own words are that we are exporting our borders. We have a relationship with many countries which accept that officials of the United Kingdom are able to process things abroad. Of all the people that UKBA comes into contact with, we should be most careful about the welfare of children. It is clear that the very high standardsbroadly speakingthat we have here, regrettably do not apply in a number of other countries. Therefore, we cannot assume that the local safeguarding children board, or whatever structures another country has in place to look after children, will be able to deal appropriately with the welfare of children, as that is simply not the case. In many countries there will be no safety net or local authority able to take on those responsibilities.
I hope the Minister will accept that this is a valid and well-meaning amendment about promoting the welfare of childrensomething that the Government recognise as a responsibility of UKBA within the UK. Surely, it is just a small extension to ensure that that responsibility also applies outside the UK. I hope the Minister will respond positively.

Damian Green: I want to put down some caveats. I sympathise with the motives behind the amendment, but I wonder about the practicalities. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington or the Minister will pick up on some of these points. The Minister will be aware that in this country, local authorities are essentially responsible for the welfare of children who come through the immigration system. In some cases, many of those local authorities would prefer that responsibility to be taken by UKBA, as there would be funding implications to that. I wonder about the practicalities of assigning that duty of care to the UK Government in a general sense, or to UK agencies abroad. What sort of agencies are we talking about? What criteria would have to be met for the child to become the responsibility of the UK, as opposed to the responsibility of an agency in the country in which our agency is based? In principle, if a child is in his or her own country, surely the responsibility for their care must lie in that countrys jurisdiction rather than in this country.

Tom Brake: Perhaps to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot, does he believe that that would apply in the case of an escorted removal when a child is being transported to another country on a plane? At the moment that that plane lands, does the responsibility lie with the country where the plane has landed?

Damian Green: Presumably, if the child is still airside, there would be a question as to what jurisdiction they were in, but that is clearly a small example of the wider point that I assume the hon. Gentleman is making about where children come from.

Phil Woolas: The answer is yes.

Damian Green: The Minister can give his own answer to the question if he likes.
There is a serious question about the guidelines that would need to be issued to UK staff based overseas. Essentially, all my caveats boil down to what would happen in practice. How would the measure be a practical way of enhancing childrens welfare? I take the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington makeswe will have higher standards in this country than there are in some othersbut he will recognise that if we made the amendment, extra pressure would be put on British authorities in other countries.
I approach the matter with a questioning mind. One cannot impugn the motivations behind the measure, but would it be a practical solution that could be operated in the real world?

Phil Woolas: I absolutely acknowledge that the intention of the proposed amendment is good. There was a significant debate in the other place regarding the duty that is being put on by the clause.
Let me remind the Committee of the primary purpose of the duty. We are attempting to ensure that UKBA has a duty that is the same as that found in section 11 of the Children Act 2004, thereby bringing the agency in line with a number of other public bodies in the UK, so that they can share information and concerns about children. The agencies that also work overseas do not have that duty placed on them overseas, partly for the reasons the hon. Member for Ashford gave. I recognise that that is not an argument in and of itself because the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will say, Well, they should have the duty as well, which I understand.
The application of the duty that clause 57 places with regard to children overseas was also the subject of a very good quality debate in the other place. Our point of view then, as now, is that the duty is based on the systems in place in the UK and that it cannot be transplanted to other countries, which may have entirely different arrangements. Moreover, it is likely that other countries would consider it an interference in their jurisdiction if UKBA were to seek to assume the level of responsibility for local children as it would for children in the UK.
A useful test in this area of policy is to imagine the reaction of ones constituents if things were the other way aroundif an agent from another country were to take such an attitude in the UK. To reassure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I remind him that the UK does not and cannot deport childrenhe referred to escorts and deportationto countries where it is deemed unsafe to do so. We are not allowed to do that. We believe that our formal responsibilities under the duty should be confined to children who are in the United Kingdom.
I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, because I heard what he said about the Refugee Council. Wethe taxpayer ratherfund that body to the tune of around £17 million a year to do that work. Sometimes, when I read the newspapers, perhaps I bite my tongue, but that is quite right in a democracythe council does a great job and we work with it on the Gateway project very effectively. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child also limits the responsibility of states parties to children within their jurisdiction. That is something that we take seriously.
My second point is to reassure the Committee that none of that means that we do not take appropriate action to ensure that our officials overseas take appropriate action with regard to children. Indeed, the statutory guidance that accompanies the duty sets out the expectation that UKBA staff overseas will make referrals to overseas authorities where local or other international agreements permit or require. In addition, our staff going to work overseas receive training in childrens issues as part of their induction. There is much voluntary co-operation. As it stands, the practical points made by the hon. Member for Ashford are pertinent.
As the amendment stands, it would introduce an undesirable lack of clarity into the work of the agency, since it would be unclear which children and when would be the responsibility of the UK Government, when UKBA would be responsible for children outside the UK, or which UK agencies were being referred to. Take, for example, the juxtaposed controls in France, which are covered by French law, subject to treaty agreement; we believe that the best way of achieving the duty upon our staff there is through the implementation of the code of practice. If I were to go to France and tell the French that our law was to overrule their law, they would very quickly tell me where to put my juxtaposed controlsif I can put it in English and not in French.
There are some practical difficulties. Similarly, consider an overseas posting into which a child, accompanied or otherwise, may be sent to apply for a visa. Do our staff have a duty of care? There are practical arrangements that could cause difficulties.

Tom Brake: May I put a concrete example to the Minister? If he is able to say, Well, this couldnt possibly happen, I shall at least be reassured on that point. The view put forward by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is that the failure to promote the welfare of children abroad may have results as harmful to the child as any failure in respect of the child in the UK, including granting a visa enabling a child to be trafficked to or via the UK, or handing a lone child over to the authorities in another country that has not made arrangements for the childs welfare. Is the Minister saying that those circumstances could never arise because of the safeguards that are currently in place?

Phil Woolas: It is a difficult point. I take that very seriously. What the hon. Gentleman is asking, in effect, is whether one of our officials could be misled or duped in some way into being party to the trafficking of a child and whether there should be an obligation set out in statute that that should not be the case. My answer would be twofold. First, if our current practices did not cover that, I think that hon. Members would want to know why. If the case was that we did not currently have procedures in place to check that, then that would be the difficulty. If a child was brought in legitimately and then abandoned, as happens from time to time, would the member of staff be subject to legal action rather than disciplinary action because he or she had been duped, and what would the consequence be?
The difficulty, therefore, is again one of practical arrangement and of intent. Also, in the situation that the hon. Gentleman describedI can think of others, such as escortingthe member of staff would have an obligation, which stems in part from that duty through the statutory code, to refer it to the relevant authority in the country in which he or she was based.
For those reasons, which I am satisfied are good ones, we do not want the amendment on the statute book, given those reassurances on the obligations that we place on staff. I think that the overwhelming argument is that conflict with the laws and practicesparticularly the lawsof overseas countries would render the amendment difficult. There has been no objection, I think, to the purpose of the clause itself, so I will not speak on that point.

Tom Brake: I have listened carefully to what the Minister and the Conservative spokesman have said. Clearly, significant practical issues would arise if any attempt were made to introduce the amendment. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the scenario outlined cannot happen in practice because of the safeguards that are in place; he might be able to write to me on the subject.
I acknowledge the significant practical issues that might arise, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 57, page 46, line 3, at end insert
(5A) The Secretary of State shall collect and publish statistics regarding detention of children during the relevant period, on a regular basis..
I hope that I can restore friendly relations along the Bench with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, as my amendment is identical to one tabled in another place by his noble Friend Lord Avebury and supported by my noble Friend Lady Hanham. The purpose of the amendment is to gain further assurances from the Government that they will collect and publish data relating to the detention of children under Immigration Act powers and, we hope, commit to a timetable for doing so. We have had various discussions about the amount and quality of statistical information available in the field, and I am sure that even the Minister would admit that things are not perfect, to put it no higher.
The amendment would make a small step forward in one of the most sensitive areasthe detention of children. The Minister will be aware that the Refugee Childrens Consortium, a joint body of organisations and charities that deal with children, such as Save the Children, the Refugee Council and many others, is concerned about the limited scope and poor quality of data kept by UKBA and its contractors on the children that it detains, both those detained with their parents and separated children whose age, and disputes over whose age, are essential to deciding how they are treated.
The Refugee Childrens Council contendsI have some sympathy with this contentionthat without such information, it is not possible for UKBA to meet its duty under the code of practice or the new duty that we are discussing under the clause. If it does not have comprehensive and accurate information, UKBA is in no position to monitor how its policies are affecting children and any underlying trends. Similarly, the lack of information impedes the Governments ability to comply with their reporting obligations under article 44.2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which requires that:
Reports shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention in the country concerned.
The collection, presentation and publication of such information is now imperative in light of the welcome recent withdrawal of the Governments reservation on immigration and nationality matters with regard to the convention on the rights of the child.
At the moment we get a limited snapshot in the quarterly statistics, which are aggregated into the annual statistics. We get a snapshot of the children who are detained with their families. The key is that it is not possible to track cohorts or to know how many children were detained over a given period, the cumulative length or outcome of their detention, the childrens nationality or where or at what point in a childs asylum claim they were detained. The most recent figures were published on 20 May and they demonstrate the paucity of information that is currently available to us. They show that for the first quarter of 2009, 30 people detained solely under Immigration Act powers were recorded as less than 18 years old. Twenty of them had been in detention for less than 29 days, five for between 29 days and two months, and the remaining five for between two and three months.
During her inspection of Yarls Wood, the chief inspector of prisons obtained more illuminating figures that seemed to justify the concerns, but she highlighted alarming inaccuracies in the data. I have personal experience of that; it has been some time since I have been inside Yarls Wood, but last time I was there I looked at the data collected on how many children were detained for more than 28 days. When I asked in a parliamentary question for a regularised version of the data, I was told that it was not collected, but I have seen itI know that it is collected. I know that it is at Yarls Wood, so to be told that the data were not available seemed questionable.
Given the Governments view that the detention of families with children whose asylum claims have failed and whose appeal rights have been exhausted is necessary for their removal from the UK, statistical information should be made available to allow scrutiny of the Governments policy of detaining families. Data should show the number of families removed from the UK after their detention and the number of families temporarily released or with other outcomes after their detention. In that context, like the Minister but unlike the Refugee Childrens Consortium, I accept that in some cases detention of families with children may be necessary at the moment. Given that at present we do not have adequate alternatives to detention, I think it is important that such facilities are available. None the less, it still seems necessary that we should make available proper information about what is happening to those families, and particularly their children.
In another place it was stated that without comprehensive information it is impossible to determine whether or not the Governments stated policythat detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessaryis being adhered to. On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister made a commitment to the House that UKBA would continue to review and update how it collates and updates its statistics and guidance. He said:
We can do better and we are putting in a lot of effort to do better to underpin the new duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all the children with whom UKBA comes into contact. I have asked the agency to set up a round-table discussion involving representatives of the major childrens charities.[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1539.]
That is clearly a step forward. We now need, and I hope to gain from the Minister today, a timetable for producing the comprehensive cohort data that we, the childrens charities, and the wider public need to assess what is happening: the total length and outcome of detention, the childrens nationality and at what point in their asylum claim they were detained. It is unacceptable that such data are not routinely gathered either by immigration removal centres, if the Minister decides that they are notthough, having seen the data, I have my doubtsor centrally by UKBA.
We also need data in one other areathe number of age-disputed young people who are held in detention and the number of disputed cases subsequently found to be children. Once again that is a central point about transparency and accountability. It is the UKBAs policy,
not to detain [unaccompanied] children other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
However, UKBA says:
Where an applicant claims to be a child but their appearance very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age, the applicant should be treated as an adult until such time as credible documentary or other persuasive evidence such as a full Merton-compliant age assessment by Social Services is produced which demonstrates that they are the age claimed.
All that is fine, but we do not know how many have that test put to them nor how many are then found to be under 18. If statistics are not collected on the number of such cases, the number later found to be children and for how long they are in detention, we do not believe UKBA can itself know or be satisfactorily held to account by anyone else on the effectiveness of its policy. The central purpose of the amendment is that it would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish the data.
Not just Members on the Opposition Benches, but very many people who are concerned with the detention of children, think that without the provision of that essential statistical information it is impossible to know how effective Government policy is in this area. If it is impossible to know, suspicions will flourish. I am sure everyone is uneasy about the detention of children, possibly for long periods, and to do that under this cloak of secrecy makes it all the worse. It certainly damages the reputation of this country around the world. I hope the Minister will take the amendment very seriously.

Tom Brake: I am not easily offended, so I will be happy to support the amendment. It rightly seeks to ensure that we have much better quality data about what is happening to children within the system. It would be helpful if the statistics were to cover, for instance, escorted children abroad and that might address some of the issues I raised earlier. It would enable us to have a better picture of how those children are cared for. It is a sensible proposal, although it could have been more specific regarding the frequency of publishing the statisticsperhaps on a monthly basisand the sort of information that it might be useful to provide in regular reports.
The hon. Member for Ashford raised an interesting point about children who are considered to look over 18 and therefore are treated as adults. I hope the betting industry is not used as an example, as 95 per cent. of the test purchases made in betting shops by a 17-year-old were successful. A much greater number of children may be falling foul of the looking-18 rule than we know about. It would be useful to have a feel for how many children are considered to look 18 when many may be much younger. I hope the Minister will be able to provide us with a positive response to a sensible proposal.

Phil Woolas: I have thought about the matter, and the hon. Gentlemen are right. We should publish statistics based on the average length of stay, as well as the ones we currently publish that give a snapshot. It is common sense; it is decent. I think the political criticism that we get as a Government is ridiculous. We should publish the information and I shall explain in a moment what we intend to do. In addition, publishing the statistics will provide a better explanation of policy.
On the point just made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about children, the statistics will show that lots people aged over 18 claim to be childrenI think that someone aged 31 recently tried to do soand there is a dispute among professionals about how to ascertain a childs age. Some of the children that I have seen in detention look pretty old and are pretty big and strong, but I make that point just to put the issue in context.
Let me give the reassurances that the Committee wants. I think that hon. Members are speaking as both constituency representatives and as spokespeople for their parties. The issue was debated in the other place where we gave some commitments, and I have of course looked at it since then. I am glad that the amendment has been tabled as it draws attention to the need for more accurate and up-to-date recording of data on the detention of children, and it also informs the debate.
Any Government must justify the detention of children, and I think that there are safeguards in the Bill. There is justification for the argument that the legal system and, sometimes, legal advice prolong the detention. We have had a debate about judicial reviews, and the detention of children at Yarls Wood is meant to be the final stage in the process, but sometimes delays are caused that are outside UKBAs control. The matter is in everybodys interest, as well as in the interest of accountability.
We share the real concern that statistics on children in detention are not currently published in a way that enables the length of detention to be clearly identified. That is what the House, the interested parties and, I think, the public are looking for. The problem has arisen because we have not been confident that the data held centrally are robust enough. The Government have an obligation to produce published official statistics, either through the Office for National Statistics or through our own Home Office statisticians, who are themselves independent from Ministers. As the Committee knows, I have sometimes found that very frustrating and I have justified my point of view to the Select Committee.
For published national statistics, there is an inescapable need to ensure that the standards set down by the UK Statistics Authority are met. The standards are rigorous, and are designed to create confidence that the information presented is accurate and objective. For example, if a family is taken to Yarls Wood, then taken out, and then put back in again, we have to get the statistics right, but I am not hiding behind that point, because the issue can be addressed.
The hon. Member for Ashford asked why the Yarls Wood data are not published. I asked the same question following my visit to Yarls Wood, and there is a good reason: we are now quite rightly strict about having only one case file for each case. The legacy cases that we often talk about are cases and not individuals, so a legacy case of 150,000 probably relates to around 100,000 people, even though the number of cases is 150,000, so misrepresentations can be made. In the case of Yarls Wood, that means that whenever anyone makes a decision involving a child they have all the previous information available to them so that the consequences of their decisions are understood.
However, I do not wish to over-egg the pudding; the Home Office statisticians have already commenced work on the project to develop statistics on children in detention, and they plan to publish additional statistical analyses on the number of children in detentionby age, gender, nationality and place of initial detention, which is something that I think the hon. Gentleman has previously raisedand the total number of children leaving detention, so that we can see the full picture. The statistics will appear in the August 2009 issue of the quarterly Control of Immigration: Statistics statistical bulletin, a document read more widely than its name implies.
The plans were discussed with relevant voluntary organisations on 21 May and the resulting statistics will be published, as I have said, in future statistical bulletins. The plans include expanding the details about those leaving detention, to show the time periods involved and the reason for leaving, whether that be removal to another country or another reason. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee.

David Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend add to those figures the number of under-18s in the same family? That would be relevant. There are cases involving three or four people from the same family.

Phil Woolas: If that figure is not there, it should be. I can see exactly the point of that. If we look at the case, the children are detained because of the parent. The alternative policy, which as my hon. Friend knows we have tried elsewhere, is to separate the child from the parent, which, in practice, is normally the mother. That is equally or perhaps more undesirable, certainly from the childs point of view. That is implicit in what I have said, and so I accept that point of view.
I will not put forward arguments about the drafting of the clause and so on. I make those commitments to the Committee and will repeat them on Report if that is desirable, and we can move on and have a proper debate.

Damian Green: May I clear up what the process is? Is the Minister saying that he will table an amendment on Report that would have that effect and that he would therefore like me to withdraw the amendment?

Phil Woolas: I believe that the desirable way forward is for the Committee to accept my assurances that we will do that. It is not appropriate for such a specific expectation to be in the Bill. I was simply asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment in the light of my assurances. I do not want him, other Committee members or you, Mr Gale, to think that this is just a way of getting over an awkward amendment; it is not. The amendment is not awkward, it is something that we are committed to. I commit to repeating that commitment on Report, by which time I will have further information on the publication dates and the plans.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the Ministers positive response. In a sense, there is nothing more to say. I am glad that the Government have done that. It is overdue and welcome, and we are pleased to have achieved it. I can assure the Minister that the quarterly statistics are read avidly by some of us for many days after they come out because they are full of exciting illumination. On the basis of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Extent

Amendment made: 33, in clause 59, page 46, line 31, leave out 55 and insert
[Transfer of immigration or nationality judicial review applications].(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment NC4.

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Commencement

Amendments made: 34, in clause 60, page 47, line 1, leave out 51 (entry otherwise than by sea or air: immigration control) and insert [Common Travel Area] (Common Travel Area)

This amendment is consequent on amendment NC3.
Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 47, line 8, leave out 55 (fresh claim applications) and insert
[Transfer of immigration or nationality judicial review applications] (transfer of immigration or nationality judicial review applications).(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment NC4.

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 60, page 47, line 35, at end add
(12) If any part of this Act has not come into force within two years of it receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament the reasons..
I do not often table amendments to a commencement clause, but I thought that it was worth doing so in this instance. I have been looking back at the record of the implementation of the multitude of immigration Bills that have been introduced. By my analysis there have been eight. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), always makes it nine; we have never quite reconciled the numbers. I think that this is the third such Bill that I have had to deal with. I am sorry to weary the House with some detail, but it is worth doing.
If one goes back to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, sections 98 to 117, 125, 130 to 137 and 146 have not yet been commenced. One might argue that that is fair enough as that Act was only passed last year. However, going back to the UK Borders Act 2007, sections 19, 24, 32 to 38 in part and 57 have not yet been implemented. Whole shoals of the Identity Cards Act 2006, which had a significant effect on immigration, have not yet been commencedthank God. With a following wind and a sensible new Home Secretary, they never will be.
Going back even further, section 16 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 has not yet been implemented. I have four lines on the sections of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that have not been introduced. I will not weary the House with details, but the second half of that Act just was not implemented at all; sections 44 to 47, 51, 53 and 124 have not yet been implemented. One can go back even further to Acts dating back to the last century and find parts that have not been implemented.
That tells us that the Government are very keen to rush in a new immigration Bill every session. However, at some stage after the House has scrutinised it but before anything happens in the real world, they decide not to implement large parts of it. So I suppose that I am seeking some assurance from the Minister that he is absolutely sure that everything that we are discussing and passing in this Bill will actually happen in the real world, because all the evidence of previous Home Office immigration Bills is that that is not the case. I want to know exactly how much time of the Committee and the House is being wasted in discussing and passing legislation that is destined never to achieve anything.

Phil Woolas: We have a very unusual situation whereby the Conservative spokesperson is urging the Government to implement their Bills. So I welcome his support on that.
If you will allow me, Mr. Gale, I want to reflect on the fact that, in our debate on clause 39 as was, on the transitional arrangements, if hon. Members were to get their way, the implementation date would be put back, would it not? In some cases, I was urgednot in this room, but elsewhereto put the implementation back by several decades.
However, let me try to address the hon. Gentlemans serious point. There was indeed a parliamentary question on this issue, which was put to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We commend the hon. Gentleman on his research and for making this point. As I said at the start of our consideration, I am in favour of post-legislative scrutiny; I think that the House should do that and I believe that the public would respect us more if we did look at laws after they are passed.
The answer to the hon. Gentlemans question is that 18 of the substantive provisions of the Bill, if both Houses agree to it, will come into force by order. That includes those provisions in part 2, including earned citizenship, provisions on a common travel area, the judicial review clause and the childrens duty.
Let me reassure you, Mr. Gale, and the Committee that the Government have every intention of implementing everything in the Bill within the next two years. A total of 43 clauses, including provisions in part 1 on border functions, and clause 52 on restriction on studies, come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Part 1 is essential as it will allow for the formal transfer to UKBA of about 4,500 officers who are currently employed by HMRC, to enable the full integration of customs and immigration work at the border. All the other provisions in the Bill will begin implementation by the end of 2010.
The only exception where I cannot assure the Committee relates to clause 54, because we remain committed to consulting Scottish Ministers in advance of laying any orders and I will not prejudge those conversations by announcing the implementation date now. I take the hon. Gentlemans point but do not think that you, Mr. Gale, would allow me to answer all the questions he asked, which are outside the scope of the amendment and the Bill. I assure him, however, that the Bill, which is small, modest and perfectly formed, will fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with the simplification Bill, which will come later.
I wish that the hon. Member for Ashford, who criticised us for bringing forward legislation to the House, would co-operate with us in getting more timetabling for immigration Bills so that we did not have to keep coming back. If we get that co-operation, he will not be able to use the amendment when we debate the simplification Bill. That apart, I hope I have convinced him that my timetable for implementation of the Bill, which is what we are discussing, is sure, on track and necessary.

Damian Green: I assure the Minister with great sincerity that one thing I do not criticise the Government for is being backward in bringing forward immigration legislation. I have been making the point for some years that there is too much legislation and not enough enforcement, and too much of the legislation is defective. I adduce in evidence the fact that the Government, after passing their own legislation, clearly decide that large chunks of it are defective, because otherwise they would put it into practice. I think I have made my point and so beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Short title

Amendment made: 36, in clause 61, page 47, line 38, leave out subsection (2).(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment leaves out the common-form provision inserted by the House of Lords at Third Reading to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the House of Commons.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Repeals

Amendment proposed: 37, in schedule, page 48, line 34, at end insert
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
In section 11(2), in paragraphs (a) and (b), the words or elsewhere in the common travel area..
(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment NC3.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 38, in schedule, page 49, line 3, at end insert
Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)
Section 25A(7).
Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
Section 31A(7).
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c. 15)
Section 20(5)..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment NC4.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(Steve McCabe.)

Adjourned till Thursday 18 June at Nine oclock.